On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 13:13:01 -0400, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Possibly the relsize axis ought to be measured on a log scale, or >something like that, but that didn't seem to work nicely when relsize >approaches zero.
In my experiments I used log(relsize) on the x axis, and I don't think that the graph looks unpleasant for small relsize. My thought was (and is) that we are much more interested in whether relpages is 1/100, 1/10, 1, 10, 100 times effective_cache_size than whether it is relpages +/- 1000, 2000, 3000, ... I played around with some numbers that could be considered fairly realistic. You might want to look at the graphs I linked to in the previous message or download http://www.pivot.at/pg/costsize.sxc. But I think we are wasting too much effort. The graphs don't look too different, whether you use relsize or relsize^2. Maybe relsize^3 is optimal? Nobody knows. The important part of the patch is that the result is scaled and shifted into the range 1 to random_page_cost. Whatever you decide to do is ok with me. Servus Manfred ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
